University Standards Approved by the University Review Committee June 28, 2011
UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWAN
STANDARDS FOR PROMOTION AND TENURE
A.
PRINCIPLES
The award of tenure represents a long-term commitment of the University to a faculty member. It is a status granted as a result of judgement, by one’s peers, on both the performance of academic duties
and the expectation of future accomplishments. Promotion of colleagues involves an assessment of their success in performing their academic duties and an evaluation of the likelihood of future
accomplishments.
Tenure and promotion both take place against a background of values most recently articulated in A Framework for Planning at the University of Saskatchewan, adopted by University Council in 1998. This
document guides all of our decisions at the University of Saskatchewan including the collegial decisions of tenure and promotion, which are essential for the University’s standing within the academic
community. This document identified four major goals for the University.
•
At the University of Saskatchewan, we have affirmed our intention to improve the quality of the instructional programs offered to students. This requires that considerable attention be paid to
the evaluation of teaching to ensure that the instruction provided is, and continues to be, of high quality.
•
At the University of Saskatchewan, we have affirmed that the “teacher-scholar” will be our adopted model for faculty development. This model builds on the principle that universities acquire
their distinctive character through their capacity to unite scholarship with teaching. This capacity can only be realized by appropriate faculty personnel strategies, including those associated
with tenure and promotion decisions.
•
At the University of Saskatchewan, we have also affirmed that we will increase our research efforts. A Framework for Planning makes the following judgement: “At the University of
Saskatchewan the commitment to research and scholarship needs to be intensified.” To achieve this goal, we must ensure that our hopes are reflected in the standards that we set for
ourselves.
•
At the University of Saskatchewan, we have signaled our intention to respond to the needs of Aboriginal peoples. A Framework for Planning indicates that: “In Saskatchewan, the task of
responding to specific, local needs and, simultaneously opening doors to the world, is particularly pressing in the context of Aboriginal peoples.” To achieve this goal, we must ensure that the
standards we adopt encourage the recruitment of Aboriginal peoples into academic positions and their successful career development.
l
In addition to these four broad goals, A Framework for Planning identifies three principles by which we must govern ourselves: autonomy, quality and accountability. At the University of Saskatchewan we
believe that all of our decisions, including our collegial decisions, must take these principles into account.
Finally, the University of Saskatchewan’s Mission Statement indicates that we value interdisciplinary research and teaching and we should foster it within our institution. The Mission Statement highlights
the four scholarships of teaching, discovery, integration, and application. This inclusive approach to scholarship is intended, among other things, to ensure that faculty who have interdisciplinary interests
will be encouraged to pursue them and they will be taken into account and valued in the context of tenure and promotion considerations.
1
B.
AUTHORITY
This document contains standards defining the expectations of performance for the award of tenure and promotion at the University of Saskatchewan.1 The University Review Committee establishes the
University’s criteria and standards for renewal of probation, tenure, and promotion. Given the broad array of colleges and disciplines represented at the University of Saskatchewan, differences will exist
from department to department and from college to college. Colleges and departments will propose their own standards and these must be consistent with the intent and the framework of the University
standards. All college standards must be approved by the University Review Committee before implementation at the college level. All department standards must be approved by the College Review
Committee before implementation at the department level.
C.
CATEGORIES OF EVALUATION
There are seven categories under which a candidate for tenure or promotion may be evaluated. These categories are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Academic Credentials
Teaching Ability and Performance
Knowledge of Discipline and Field of Specialization
Research, Scholarly and Artistic Work
Practice of Professional Skills
(a) Contributions to Administrative Responsibilities of the Department, College or University
(b) Contributions to the Extension Responsibilities of the Department, College or University
Public Service and Contributions to Academic and Professional Bodies
Standards of performance are established for each category in Section D below.
All faculty are assessed under category four unless the letter of appointment states category five.
The categories in which candidates must meet the standards for tenure in the professorial ranks and for promotion to Associate Professor and Professor are shown in Table I. Each candidate will be
evaluated for all categories that are applicable to the candidate’s position and to the tenure or promotion decision under consideration. For a candidate to be awarded an overall rating of “meets the
standard” for tenure and promotion they must have an overall rating of “meets the standard” in each and every category under consideration. If a department or college committee rates a candidate as
“does not meet the standard” in any category they must vote no to the question “shall tenure or promotion be recommended”. If there is superior performance in a category, or if there is a contribution where
there is no requirement for one, this fact is seen as positive but does not compensate for failure to meet the standard in a required category.
Tenure will be awarded on the basis of three primary categories: academic credentials (Category One); effectiveness in teaching (Category Two); and, achievements in either research, scholarly and/or
artistic work (Category Four) or practice of professional skills (Category Five). If faculty are being assessed in Category Five it will be stated in their letter of appointment. The promise of future development
as a teacher, scholar and professional, achievement in scholarly activity beyond that demonstrated at appointment, and the attainment of a national or international reputation in the discipline, will be
important criteria in the evaluation process.
Promotion through the ranks requires a judgement of performance against increasing expectations for effectiveness in teaching, significance of the scholarly or creative work, practice of a profession, and
contributions to service within and outside the University community. With respect to teaching, research, scholarly and/or artistic work or practice of professional skills, candidates for promotion must have
maintained and extended their knowledge of the discipline or field. In some cases, additional training and academic/professional credentials may be pre-requisites for promotion.
The standard for renewal of probationary appointments will be satisfactory progress towards meeting the tenure standards for the appropriate rank in all relevant categories. For this purpose, ‘satisfactory
progress’ will be taken to mean that the candidate’s teaching and research and scholarly activities indicate a reasonable likelihood that the tenure standards can be met within the allotted timeframe. If
renewal of probation is not recommended, the Department Head or Dean (in non-departmentalized colleges) must demonstrate that the candidate has not made satisfactory progress towards the tenure
standards for the appropriate rank.
In this document, the term college is understood to include both Graduate Schools and the University Library. Standards of performance and details of all categories for Librarian ranks are described in the
University Library Standards; and, for Assistant Professors (Crop Development Centre – CDC), Associate Professors (CDC) and Professors (CDC) in the College of Agriculture and Bioresources standards.
It is expected that these standards will parallel the progressive requirements of other members of faculty.
2
The requirements listed in Table I are considered a minimum. If a College Review Committee identifies more demanding requirements as appropriate for that college, it will submit a proposal to the
University Review Committee. Because Table I does not provide requirements for tenure as Instructor, Lecturer or for promotion to Assistant Professor, in colleges where such appointments
are common, the college standards will specify the minimum requirements. In other cases, the requirements for specific appointments should be established by the Search and Appointment Committees at
the time of appointment
These standards introduce a requirement for the creation of a tenure or promotion case file which describes the candidate’s philosophy, activities, achievements, and plans in the categories of teaching,
research and/or scholarly work or practice of professional skills, and other relevant categories (i.e., administration, extension and public service) and which describes the committees’ evaluation, both
qualitative and quantitative, of the candidate. One tenure or promotion case file will be submitted for each candidate under consideration. See Section E for a description of the required documentation.
TABLE I– REQUIRED CATEGORIES
(1)
Academic/
Professional
Credentials
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Teaching
Knowledge
of Discipline
Research,
Scholarly
and Artistic
Work
Practice of
Professional Skills
(a) Administration
(b)
Extension
Public
Service
And Service
to
Professional
Bodies
NR**
NR
*
*
Tenure as
Assistant
Professor
X
X
X
X
or
X
The minimum acceptable standards for tenure and promotion at the University of Saskatchewan are
described below.
1.
Tenure as
or
Promotion
to
Associate
Professor
X
X
X
X
or
X
(a)
(b)
X
NR
**
Tenure as
or
Promotion
to
Professor
X
X
X
X
or
X
(a) X
(b) NR**
Candidates
must
demonstrate
willingness to
participate
Candidates
must
demonstrate
willingness to
participate
X = Candidate is required to meet the standard in this category.
NR = Candidate is not required to meet the standard in this category for promotion or tenure.
Candidate is required the meet the standard in research, scholarly or artistic work except where the approved college
standards state that practice of professional skills is an acceptable alternative for a department or other unit.
*
** For all ranks, candidate is required to meet the standard in extension service only if part of assigned duties of position.
Note: The table should not be considered in isolation, but only in conjunction with the text as a whole, in particular
Section D where the standards (for promotion and tenure) in each category are described.
2.
D. STANDARDS FOR EACH CATEGORY OF EVALUATION
ACADEMIC AND/OR PROFESSIONAL CREDENTIALS
Academic credentials will be reviewed as part of tenure and promotion decisions, but they are of
particular importance in tenure considerations. Expectations regarding credentials and qualifications
will be included in the candidate’s letter of appointment.
The required academic credential for tenure and promotion is a Ph.D., or its discipline-specific
counterpart, from a university/institution recognized by the University of Saskatchewan. Colleges will
indicate in their standards which qualifications constitute the acceptable counterpart for the discipline
in question. Each college will specify whether additional expectations will be required, e.g.
professional credentials (such as specialty certification, registration or licensure in the profession). In
cases where the Ph.D. or other qualifying credentials are not completed at the time of appointment,
the letter of appointment will indicate that tenure cannot be awarded without the required credentials
as specified in this section.
In exceptional cases, alternative qualifications will be accepted when such qualifications are deemed
to be equivalent to the academic credentials typically expected in the discipline. The acceptability of
these alternative qualifications must be explained and stipulated in the candidate’s letter of
appointment.
TEACHING ABILITY AND PERFORMANCE
Good teaching is expected of all faculty and evaluation of teaching will form an essential component of tenure and promotion considerations. University teaching requires more than classroom performance.
Candidates will be expected to demonstrate mastery of their subject area(s) or discipline(s), to make thorough preparation for their classes, to communicate effectively with their students, to show a
willingness to respond to students’ questions and concerns, and to exhibit fairness in evaluating students2.
3
Both before and after tenure is awarded, faculty are expected to remain committed to improving/enhancing their teaching performance and to remedy problems identified with their teaching. As faculty
progress through the ranks, they will be expected to extend their knowledge of their field(s) or discipline(s), i.e. with respect to classes, currency of the material presented, and new teaching methods.
For tenure and promotion, assessment of teaching performance will be based on a series of evaluations of a candidate’s teaching performance and teaching materials over a period of time. The
assessment will involve both peer and student evaluation of aspects of teaching and evidence of performance described in Table II. Evaluations, both peer and student, will be obtained on an ongoing
basis and should be shared with candidates for formative purposes.
College standards may specify which of the various teaching roles and aspects identified in Table II are to be evaluated and how the overall assessment of teaching performance is to be made, i.e., what
items or activities are to be reviewed and by whom. College standards will specify those situations in which candidates must demonstrate satisfactory performance in specific teaching roles or aspects of
teaching in order to receive an overall assessment of meeting the standard in this category. When evaluating a candidate’s teaching performance, it may be appropriate in some cases to consider aspects
and review items other than those listed in Table II; however, any additional elements must be included in the college standards and must be approved by the University Review Committee.
TABLE II - EVALUATION OF TEACHING
Teaching Roles
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
a)
teaching in introductory
undergraduate courses
teaching in advanced
undergraduate courses
teaching in graduate courses
clinical teaching in
undergraduate or graduate
courses
teaching and/or supervision of
students performing clinical
work, practica or other types
of field work, study-abroad or
international exchange
programs
supervising honours students
advising and supervising
graduate students, postdoctoral fellows
teaching courses in certificate
or diploma programs
co-ordination or
administration of multiple
section or multiple instructor
courses
contributions to
internationalization of
educational experience
Aspects to be assessed
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
organization of class/course
preparation for classes
appropriateness of material
presented; i.e., volume,
level, currency
clarity of communication
ability to stimulate students’
interest
responsiveness to students’
questions and concerns
fairness and adequacy of
evaluation of students’
performance
willingness to try different or
new teaching methods and
technologies
availability for students
outside of class time
adequacy of support and
direction provided to
graduate students
fairness in dealing with
students
·
teaching innovation in
curricular design
·
incorporation of teaching
innovations into teaching
pedagogy
·
extent to which scholarly
work is brought into the
classroom
teaching at a distance
Items and Activities
to be reviewed
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
teaching in the classroom
teaching in clinical or
laboratory settings
course outlines/syllabi
instructional materials -written course materials,
laboratory manuals, audiovisual resources, computer
programs
examinations
involvement on graduate
advisory and/or examination
committees
supervision of undergraduate
and graduate student work
progress/success of
graduate students
supervised
teaching dossier
·
development and
supervision of academic
exchange and/or study
abroad programs
·
pedagogical research,
publications and
presentations
Evaluation by Peers: Peer evaluation will embrace the various aspects of teaching described in Table II; e.g., classroom performance, the quality of examinations, course outlines and course
materials, syllabi, reading materials, reading lists, laboratory manuals, workbooks, and classroom assignments. All peer evaluations will culminate in a written assessment. If senior colleagues make
visitations to classrooms as part of the determination of a colleague’s delivery, rapport, attentiveness and responsiveness to students, the written assessment will specify the teaching roles being
performed.
4
b)
Evaluation by Students: The following methods of undergraduate and graduate student evaluation will be acceptable:
•
written appraisals, obtained by the Department Head or Dean, and signed by students. If based on a specific course, the number of students enrolled in that course will be provided.
•
Questionnaires, approved at the department or college level, administered by a college or department official (other than the instructor) appointed for this purpose, and completed by students. A
summary, including an interpretation, of the numeric results and any qualitative comments will be provided by the department or college at the time of tenure or promotion. Results of the
questionnaire will include the enrolment in the course and the number of completed evaluations received.
Peer and student evaluations will be coordinated by the Dean or Department Head (or designates) and will require consultation with the candidate to ensure that all committees have the necessary
information upon which to base a decision. The Dean or Department Head may request written comments from the coordinator of multiple section or multiple instructor courses or other instructors of the
course as part of the assessment.
3.
KNOWLEDGE OF THE DISCIPLINE AND FIELD OF SPECIALIZATION
Candidates for tenure and promotion will have developed an academic field of specialization and/or an area of focus and will demonstrate knowledge of the field of specialization and its relation to the
discipline. Evidence to be used to evaluate performance in this category will primarily focus on the breadth of the candidate’s work and its relationship to the discipline. Evidence used to evaluate the
candidate’s knowledge of the discipline will include either:
•
a written statement by the candidate, submitted in either Category 4 (Research, Scholarly and/or Artistic Work) or Category 5 (Practice of Professional Skills), outlining the candidate’s research
program and its relationship to the discipline.
AND/OR
•
a seminar to colleagues at the University of Saskatchewan, at tenure, or at each rank for promotion, outlining the candidate’s research program and its relationship to the discipline.
Additional evidence may be considered in this category, including peer-reviewed grants, peer review activity for journals in the discipline, invited lectures and presentations at conferences directly relevant to
the field of specialization.
To assess this category, Department and College Review Committees must indicate the evidence used in making the evaluation.
4.
RESEARCH, SCHOLARLY AND/OR ARTISTIC WORK
Research, scholarly and/or artistic work is expected of all faculty. For the purposes of this document, and for faculty evaluated under this category, research, scholarly and/or artistic work is creative,
intellectual work which is in the public realm and which has been subjected to external peer review. This includes, in the case of artistic work, exhibitions and performances.
Although academic disciplines may differ in the avenues for publication or presentation of scholarly activity, the primary and essential evidence in this category is publication in reputable peer-reviewed
outlets or, in the case of performance or artistic work, presentation in reputable peer-reviewed venues.
Evaluation of research, scholarly and/or artistic work for tenure and promotion at all ranks will address the quality and significance of the work. Evidence will include the peer-reviewed publications and
presentations referenced above, but may also include other works (e.g. artistic works, performances, research related patents, copyrighted software and audio-visual materials).
In some disciplines the award of research funding from provincial, national or international granting councils or agencies that employ a process of peer evaluation is also a significant indication of a
candidate’s performance. Colleges may specify the type and weighting of the contributions to be assessed in this category.
Specific Requirements by Rank: In addition to the above general requirements, the following will form the basis of the recommendation:
Tenure as Assistant Professor: For tenure to be recommended, there must be compelling evidence that a body of high quality scholarly work has been completed beyond that demonstrated at
appointment. There must also be evidence of the promise of future development as a scholar, including the presence of a defined program of research or scholarship. Evidence of the ability to obtain
adequate research funding will be required if specified in college or department standards.
5
The quality of research, scholarly and/or artistic work will be assessed, using the tenure and promotion standards of the University of Saskatchewan, by at least three senior academics3 drawn from
comparable institutions.
Tenure as or Promotion to Associate Professor: For the award of tenure or promotion to be recommended, there must be compelling evidence of significant achievement in scholarly activity
beyond that demonstrated at appointment and beyond that expected for the rank of Assistant Professor. Candidates will demonstrate through refereed publications or performances or exhibitions that
the results of their research, scholarly or artistic work have made a contribution sufficient to be recognized by colleagues in their field in other parts of Canada or internationally. There must also be
evidence of a program of research or scholarship, clearly defined and executed by the candidate, and a positive indication that the candidate will maintain activity in research and scholarly work.
Evidence of the ability to obtain adequate research funding will be required if specified in college or department standards.
For tenure at the Associate rank (unless tenure is a condition of appointment), the quality of research, scholarly and/or artistic work will be assessed, using the tenure and promotion standards of the
University of Saskatchewan, by at least three senior academics drawn from comparable institutions.
For promotion to the Associate rank, the candidate will be evaluated by colleagues in the candidate’s department or college (in the case of non-departmentalized colleges). The candidate will provide
an up-to-date curriculum vitae and, in collaboration with the Department Head/Dean, will provide a case file, and other relevant evidence for the purposes of this assessment.
Tenure as or Promotion to Professor: For the award of tenure or promotion to be recommended, there must be compelling evidence of significant achievement in scholarly activity beyond that
demonstrated at appointment and beyond that expected for the rank of Associate Professor. Candidates will demonstrate, through publications in reputable, peer reviewed outlets or through peer
reviewed performances or exhibitions, that the results of their research have made a contribution to the field of specialization, sufficient for this
contribution to be recognized as substantial by authorities in the field in other parts of Canada and other countries as appropriate. There must also be evidence of leadership in the establishment and
execution of a clearly defined program of research or scholarship and a positive indication that the candidate will maintain activity in research and scholarly work. Evidence of the ability to obtain
adequate research funding will be required if specified in college or department standards. Candidates will also be expected to participate in the supervision of graduate students in departments or
colleges that offer graduate programs.
For tenure (unless tenure is a condition of appointment) and/or promotion, the quality of research, scholarly and/or artistic work will be assessed, using the tenure and promotion standards of the
University of Saskatchewan, by at least three senior academics drawn from comparable institutions.
5.
PRACTICE OF PROFESSIONAL SKILLS
Candidates considered for promotion and tenure under this category will, as a major part of their assigned duties, engage in a professional practice, which involves a significant and continuing
commitment of time. Research and scholarly work linked to their professional practice is expected of all faculty evaluated under this category of assessment.
Professional practice means mastery of the professional skills associated with the discipline, and their effective use in a discipline-appropriate practice setting. Research and scholarly work is
creative, intellectual work which is in the public realm and which has been subjected to external peer review.
Both the professional practice and the research and scholarly work components of this category of assessment will be taken into account in the overall evaluation of the candidate’s performance. The
evaluation should reflect the balance between the practice of professional skills and the research and scholarly work in which the candidate is engaged.
5.1 Professional Practice
Colleges will define professional practice in the context of their particular disciplines. Two examples are provided for illustrative purposes.
Clinical Practice applies to faculty members in one of the health science professions, and faculty members from other disciplines who engage in testing, diagnosis, remediation, coaching,
counselling and similar activities. College standards will refer to some or all of the standards for practice identified in the list below and outline expectations.
Educational Practice applies to faculty members engaged in a professional practice in educational program development and delivery, and/or in instructional design. College standards will
outline expectations ensuring that the practice is grounded in a conceptual framework that is supported by contemporary literature, and that there is evidence of results achieved.
In colleges where this category of assessment is employed, colleges will provide definitions of professional practice similar to those provided above and will identify the elements of practice to be
evaluated. College standards will include some or all of the following:
6
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
performance of professional skills (e.g., clinical management, counselling, program design and evaluation, diagnosis, systems analysis, applied government and/or private sector technical and
policy reports)
peer recognition (e.g., referrals and requests for services, provision of expert advice, testimonials from client organizations, professional association recognition)
delivery of health care, technical or professional services
completeness and accuracy of investigations, procedures, reports, case records, policy analyses, etc.
effectiveness as a professional role model (for students and other trainees)
willingness to accept and perform duties out of regular working hours and in emergencies where this is an integral part of professional practice
adequacy and diversity of the service load where this is an integral part of professional practice
communication with colleagues and clients
evidence of the ability to organize and manage complex multi-faceted and large-scale programs
evidence of the ability to establish effective relationships with professional colleagues, resource persons, clients and collaborators
success in obtaining external funding
leadership in the discipline with respect to the profession
In assembling evidence of professional practice, college standards will ensure that a broad-based consultative process is in place for tenure or promotion considerations. Following consultation with
the candidate, the Department Head and/or Dean will request confidential, written evaluations from clients, client agencies or colleagues who are familiar with the technical and/or professional
aspects of practice. Candidates may also provide letters of support (placed in the case file, see Section E). College standards may refer to standards/codes adopted by appropriate professional
organizations as a guide for evaluation of practice of the profession.
5.2
Scholarly Work
Candidates for tenure or promotion will engage in scholarly work appropriate to the profession or discipline with the fundamental expectation that the results of scholarly work will be shared with other
members of the profession and the academic community. Publication in reputable peer-reviewed outlets is the primary evidence in this category.
Evaluation of scholarly work for tenure and promotion at all ranks will address the quality and significance of the work. There must be a positive indication of involvement in scholarly work with
research funding at levels appropriate to the discipline.
College standards will indicate the appropriate vehicles for dissemination or publication of scholarly work (e.g., publication of refereed articles, case reports; preparation of technical reports, reports to
agencies; presentations at academic, scientific or professional meetings, dissemination of scholarly work to community organizations). College standards must make a case for standards of quality
and significance equivalent to peer reviewed publications if vehicles other than these are used as a basis for the assessment.
Specific Requirements for Each Rank: In addition to the above general requirements, the following will form the basis of the recommendation:
For Tenure as Assistant Professor: There must be compelling evidence, beyond that demonstrated at appointment, that: 1) the candidate is developing a leadership role in the field of
specialization with provision for further development; and, 2) the candidate is contributing to the creation and dissemination of knowledge through scholarly work. There must also be evidence
of the promise of future development as a practitioner and scholar, including the presence of a defined professional practice and a defined program of scholarship. Evidence of the ability to
obtain adequate research funding will be required if specified in college or department standards.
The quality of the candidate’s professional practice and scholarly work will be assessed, using the tenure and promotion standards of the University of Saskatchewan, by at least three senior
academics4 drawn from comparable institutions.
For Tenure as or Promotion to Associate Professor: There must be compelling evidence, beyond that demonstrated for the rank of Assistant Professor, that: 1) the candidate has
established a significant leadership role in the field of specialization and demonstrated exemplary standards of client service; and, 2) the candidate has contributed to the creation and
dissemination of knowledge through scholarly work. There must also be evidence of continuing development as a practicing professional and as a scholar, including the presence of a clearly
7
defined professional practice and a clearly defined program of scholarship. The results of significant investigations, such as experimental studies or clinical observations, must have been
published in reputable peer-reviewed publications. This work must have made a contribution sufficient to be recognized by colleagues in their field in other parts of Canada or internationally.
Evidence of the ability to obtain adequate research funding will be required if specified in college or department standards.
For tenure at the Associate rank (unless tenure is a condition of appointment), the quality of the candidate’s professional practice and scholarly work will be assessed, using the tenure and
promotion standards of the University of Saskatchewan, by at least three senior academics drawn from comparable institutions.
For promotion to the Associate rank, the candidate will be evaluated by colleagues in the candidate’s department or college (in the case of non-departmentalized colleges). The candidate will
provide an up-to-date curriculum vitae and, in collaboration with the Department Head/Dean, will provide a case file, and other relevant evidence for the purposes of this assessment.
For Tenure as or Promotion to Professor: There must be compelling evidence, beyond that demonstrated for the rank of Associate Professor, that: 1) the candidate has demonstrated a
sustained high level of performance in the practice of the profession and established a reputation for expertise in the field among colleagues and, where appropriate, clients or client agencies;
and, 2) the candidate has made a significant contribution to the creation and dissemination of knowledge through scholarly work. There must also be evidence of leadership in the establishment
and
execution of a clearly defined program of scholarship and a positive indication that the candidate will maintain activity in scholarly work as well as in professional practice. The candidate will
have played a leading role in scholarly investigations and published the results in reputable peer-reviewed publications. The candidate will have made a contribution sufficient to be recognized
by colleagues in their field in other parts of Canada and in other countries. In cases where the opportunity exists to supervise graduate students, candidates for Professor will have actively
pursued these opportunities. Evidence of the ability to obtain adequate research funding will be required if specified in college or department standards.
For tenure (unless tenure is a condition of appointment) and/or promotion, the quality of the candidate’s scholarly work will be assessed, using the tenure and promotion standards of the
University of Saskatchewan, by at least three senior academics drawn from comparable institutions.
6.
CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE OR EXTENSION RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT, COLLEGE, UNIVERSITY
This category describes the candidate’s commitment to the collegium and reflects “service” within and outside the university community. Faculty are expected to be actively engaged in the collegial
decision-making processes, to participate in administrative work, and are encouraged to be involved in the activities of academic and professional organizations and, in some colleges, in extension
work. Faculty should use good judgment in balancing their activities in this category with those in other categories of assessment.
Candidates for tenure as Assistant Professor are not required to meet any requirements in this category unless such duties are specified on appointment. Candidates for tenure and promotion to
higher ranks are required to meet the standard in category 6(a). Meeting the standard in category 6(b) will be a requirement for only certain departments/colleges (as specified in their respective
standards) or positions (to be specified on appointment or in an amended letter of appointment).
(a) Administration
Faculty are expected to carry their share of administrative work. Aspects to be evaluated include quality and impact of the candidate’s contribution and the amount of time and/or effort involved.
Tenure as or Promotion to Associate Professor A fair and reasonable contribution to the administrative work of the Department, or College, or University is required.
Tenure as or Promotion to Professor A fair and reasonable contribution to the administrative work of the Department and College or University is required.
(b) Extension
Extension work (outreach and engagement) is defined as extending the University to the community through the provision of a service to the community outside of the University. It is expected
that such service will be sponsored or sanctioned by the department and/or college in which the faculty member resides.
In the case of extension specialists and faculty for whom extension is a specific requirement of their position, these activities will usually be evaluated within categories 2 and 5. A candidate
must have satisfactorily performed extension duties specified in their letter of appointment. College standards will specify which factors are to be considered and the methods by which
8
information will be gathered and evaluated. Factors to be considered when assessing this category may include: the response of clients/audiences; the number and magnitude of undertakings;
requests for services; the value of the contribution to the University; and the impact of the work. Statements from individuals who have personally observed the work performed by the
candidate will be provided to review committees.
7.
PUBLIC SERVICE AND CONTRIBUTIONS TO ACADEMIC AND PROFESSIONAL BODIES
This category describes the candidate’s commitment to the broader university community and to the general public. Meeting the standards in this category will be a requirement for only certain
colleges and departments (as specified in their respective standards). In such cases, college standards will specify which factors are to be considered and the methods by which information will
be gathered and evaluated.
Candidates for tenure as Assistant Professor are not required to meet any requirements in this category unless such duties are specified on appointment.
(a)
Public Service
Public service is normally defined as the faculty member’s provision of expertise to the outside community and will be accorded recognition insofar as the activities entail application of expertise
associated with the candidate’s position in the university.
(b) Service to Academic, Professional or Scientific Organizations
To be recognized within this category, service to academic and/or professional organizations must go beyond membership in an organization and focus on active participation. Such activities
might include: service on the committees or executives of academic or professional organizations; service on selection committees for provincial, national or international granting organizations;
or service on the editorial board for academic, professional or scientific journals.
E. PROCESS OF EVALUATION
The Dean, Executive Director or Department Head shall review the University, College and Department Standards with every faculty member as part of the annual review for faculty members who are
candidates for promotion and tenure.
Evaluation of faculty for tenure and promotion will take place within a process that is open and accountable. Both the committee chairs and the candidates are expected to share information about the
evaluation process and to contribute to the collection of appropriate documentation for the consideration of all committees. Committee chairs are expected to provide opportunities for committee members
to review the documentation, including the statement of rationale, prior to its submission to senior collegial committees.
Departments will consider eligible candidates for tenure and promotion according to their eligibility, unless a request for a deferral has been received. The candidate will confirm with the Department Head
or Dean his/her desire to be considered for tenure or promotion and will supply the documents listed in tenure and promotion case files (identified below).
Tenure and Promotion Case Files: Case files will provide the basic evidence used to assess the candidate’s case for tenure or promotion. Case files will include the following items:
1.
Provided by the Candidate:
•
An up-to-date curriculum vitae.
•
A self-assessment of the candidate’s progress towards tenure or promotion.
•
Evidence pertaining to teaching, including: a statement of the candidate’s philosophy of teaching and an explanation of its application, student and peer evaluations (if provided to the
candidate), a record of teaching roles (including time commitments and method of delivery) in undergraduate and graduate courses, teaching and/or supervision of students performing clinical
work, undertaking practica or other types of field work, and advising and supervising graduate students.
•
Evidence pertaining to research and scholarly work including a statement on the nature of the candidate’s research and future research plans, the candidate’s contribution to joint publications
and research grants, examples of published works, performances, manuscript materials, on the adequacy of the candidate’s research funding support (where required in college/department
standards), and other relevant evidence for the purposes of establishing research direction and accomplishment.
•
For candidates considered under Category 5 only, evidence pertaining to practice of professional skills including a statement on the nature and scope of the candidate’s practice, a discussion of
various leadership activities associated with the candidate’s role in professional service whether delivered to a professional audience, individuals, groups, organizations, institutions, or the
community.
•
Examples of materials pertaining to administration, extension and public service including a statement on the role of the candidate in service to academic and/or professional organizations, on
the nature and extent of the candidate’s contributions in these areas and statements from individuals (e.g. chairs, other committee members) who have personally observed the work and/or
9
contributions the candidate has performed on committees, or as part of their administrative responsibilities.
2.
Provided by the Department Head or Dean (as committee chair) in addition to the documents listed under item 3 below:
•
For departmentalized colleges: A Statement of Rationale from the college, signed by the Dean as Chair of the College Review Committee, explaining the decision at the college level and
including both majority and minority views of committee members. This statement will be made available to committee members for review prior to submission to the senior committees. The
statement of rationale must include:
o
An indication of the quality and significance of the candidate’s work and how it was assessed
o
An indication of the committee’s discussion of the evidence and the relative weighting of this evidence in the overall decision of the committee
o
Where required in the college standards, a statement of the adequacy of research funding support
o
A list of the College Review Committee members
•
For non-departmentalized colleges: A Statement of Rationale from the college, signed by the Dean as Chair of the College Review Committee, explaining the decision and including both
majority and minority views of committee members. This statement will be made available to committee members for review prior to submission to the senior committees. The statement of
rationale must include:
o
An indication of the quality and significance of the candidate’s work and how it was assessed
o
An indication and assessment of the quality of the candidate’s teaching
o
An explanation on how the student and peer evaluations were conducted, a summary of their contents and their interpretation by the college committee, and an indication of the
types of courses evaluated
o
An indication and assessment of the quality of the candidate’s research productivity within the context of the discipline including an indication of the quality of journals and other
publications
o
An assessment of the candidate’s current and potential program of research and scholarship within the context of the discipline
o
An assessment of, where required in college standards, the adequacy of research funding support
o
An explanation of the candidate’s role in joint publications, presentations, or research grants, including a statement of confirmation by collaborators.
o
An indication of the committee’s discussion of the evidence and the relative weighting of this evidence in the overall decision of the committee
o
A list of the College Review Committee members
•
For departments: A Statement of Rationale from the department, signed by the Department Head as chair of the department committee, explaining the decision at the department level and
including both majority and minority views of committee members. This statement will be made available to committee members for review prior to submission to the senior committees. The
statement of rationale must include:
o
An indication of the quality and significance of the candidate’s work and how it was assessed
o
An indication and assessment of the quality of the candidate’s teaching
o
An explanation on how the student and peer evaluations were conducted, a summary of their contents and their interpretation by the department committee, and an indication of the
types of courses evaluated
o
An assessment of the candidate’s current and potential program of research and scholarship within the context of the discipline
o
An assessment of, where required in department standards, the adequacy of research funding support
o
An indication and assessment of the quality of the candidate’s research productivity within the context of the discipline including an indication of the quality of journals and other
publications
o
An explanation of the candidate’s role in joint publications, presentations, or research grants, including a statement of confirmation by collaborators
o
An indication of the committee’s discussion of the evidence and the relative weighting of this evidence in the overall decision of the committee
o
A list of the department committee members
3.
Provided by the Department Head or Dean (as committee chair) in addition to the documents listed under item 2 above relating to the recommendations of the tenure or promotion committee:
•
Forms (T1/P1 and T2/P2).
•
A copy of the letter sent by the department (or college in the case of non-departmentalized colleges) to external referees.
•
A list of the persons identified as external referees and shown to the candidate.
•
A list of the persons selected as external referees, including a brief description of their areas and accomplishments.
•
The letters of evaluation submitted by the external referees with an indication of the role they played in the evaluation process.
•
A complete list of persons consulted in the evaluation process (e.g. co-authors, other departments in the case of joint appointments, client organizations).
•
In cases of associate memberships, comments on all categories relevant to the duties of the candidate will be solicited by the Dean or Department Head from all units with which a faculty
member is associated. Individuals solicited for comments will be provided with copies of the candidate’s curriculum vitae and supporting documentation. The candidate will be informed that
such information has been solicited.
•
Any additional documents collected by the college committee, (in addition to those submitted by the department). These are to be identified as additional material available to the College
Review Committee (e.g. letters or minority reports from members of the department committee).
•
Any other information on the specific case that the University Review Committee should be aware of (e.g. sabbatical and other leaves, academic credentials verification).
10
In conducting their evaluation, department, college and university-level committees will be able to access progress reports, theses and other information internal to the University.
Senior Academics: For the purposes of external assessment in either Category 4 (Research, Scholarly and/or Artistic Work) or Category 5 (Practice of Professional Skills), a senior academic is a
colleague holding an academic or research appointment at a comparable institution. In the case of tenure as Assistant Professor, one of the three senior academics may be at the Associate Professor
level; two must be Full Professors or equivalent. In the case of tenure as Associate Professor or Professor, the three senior academics must be Full Professors or equivalent. In the case of promotion to
Professor, the three senior academics must be Full Professors or equivalent. For candidates considered under Category 5 (Practice of Professional Skills) only, in some cases identified by the Dean, a
non-academic may be appropriate to act as a referee but only one such person will act as a referee in any given case.
External Referees: Processes constructed for the selection of the external referees will ensure that the candidate has an opportunity to put forward names for consideration and to identify potential
referees with a perceived personal bias. The University expects that this aspect of the process will be conducted in a fair and open manner and that it will protect the confidentiality of the external reviewers.
The University recommends the following process:
•
Normally, the Department Head or Dean of a non-departmentalized college will prepare a list of at least six qualified external referees. These external referees will have established national or
international reputations in their field and will be able to judge whether the candidate's work is of the required standard. They must be sufficiently ‘at arm's length’ from the candidate so as to provide
an objective assessment of performance; i.e., must not have been the candidate's colleagues, former supervisors (within the past ten years), or co-investigators. The candidate may suggest some
names, but the Department Head or Dean (of a non-departmentalized college), in consultation with committee members, should provide at least half of the names on the list. The candidate will be
permitted to ask that particular referees be dropped on grounds such as suspected personal prejudice, but may in turn be asked to provide an explanation of why a name should be dropped. When
names are dropped, others will be added so that a minimum of five names is available to the Dean. The Dean will approve the final list and a description of the credentials/background of the external
referees will be provided to the review committees for information.
•
The Department Head, or Dean of a non-departmentalized college, will select at least three (usually four) external referees from this list and write letters requesting an assessment of the candidate's
research, scholarly and/or artistic work. The candidate will not be informed of the referees selected. The letters to external referees should indicate that comments are sought only on the research,
scholarly and/or artistic work of the candidate, or in the case of consideration under Category 5 (Practice of Professional Skills), on the professional practice in addition to the research, scholarly or
artistic work of the candidate. External referees should be informed that their reply will be considered confidential and will be seen only by the committees and not by the candidate. Enclosed with
the letter should be the candidate's curriculum vitae, the relevant approved standards, and appropriate sections of the case file including all materials germane to the category of evaluation [either
Category 4 (Research and Scholarly Work) or Category 5 (Practice of Professional Skills)].
Part-time Appointments/Reduced Time Appointments. In cases of tenurable part-time appointments or in cases of reduced time appointments, individual letters of appointment will reflect expectations
regarding the appropriate timeframe in which to evaluate progress towards both tenure and promotion. Normally such candidates will be provided with extended periods of time in which to meet the
standards commensurate with the precise nature of their appointment.
Category of Assessment: The Department Head and/or Dean will determine at the time of appointment, through discussion with the faculty member, whether assigned duties will be evaluated under
Category 4 (Research, Scholarly and/or Artistic Work) or Category 5 (Practice of Professional Skills) and this agreement will be included in the letter of offer to the candidate. This determination will remain
in effect until written confirmation from the Department Head and/or Dean indicates a change in category because of new or different assigned duties. Any change must be discussed with, and agreed to in
writing by, the faculty member and approved by the Office of the Provost and Vice-President Academic. All work completed under the original category of assessment will be reassessed under the new
category at the time tenure or promotion decisions are made.
Timelines: Determinations at the department, college and university levels should be made in an expeditious fashion, mindful of collegial deadlines, but committee chairs should take the time required to
prepare a comprehensive case for the consideration of senior committees.
F.
DEFINITIONS
The University Standards refer specifically to the academic ranks of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor. However, the intent of the standards should also be read as applying to
Extension Specialists and Librarian ranks, as well as Assistant Professors (CDC), Associate Professors (CDC) and Professors (CDC). In the case of the Crop Development Centre (CDC) and clinical
faculty in the college of medicine the appropriate terminology is continuing status.
For clarity of communication in tenure and promotion proceedings throughout the University, the following standard terminology is to be used when assessing a candidate’s performance in each of the
appropriate categories:
•
Does not meet the standard for (promotion or tenure)
11
•
•
Meets the standard for (promotion or tenure)
Exceeds the standard for (promotion or tenure) i.e., a superior performance
In most cases it is only necessary to determine whether a candidate meets the standard or not. However, in some cases it will be desirable to identify those who have made an unusually significant
contribution and whose performance markedly exceeds the standards for a given rank. For this purpose the term superior should be used. The standards to be met, as well as the performance expectation
for an assessment of superior, will vary with academic rank; e.g., an assessment of superior for promotion to professor implies a higher level of performance than for tenure as an assistant professor.5
With reference to scholarly work, the term “published” means having appeared in print or having been accepted for publication. The latter (accepted for publication) means that a decision to publish a
manuscript in present form (or with such minor revisions as to not require re-submission and a second review) has been made and communicated in writing to the author.
1
This document replaces the standards for promotion and tenure adopted by the
University Review Committee February 1989, 2002. It also replaces the preliminary
standards adopted by the University Review Committee in June, 2000.
2
Readers are referred to the University Council Guidelines for Academic Conduct,
approved in June 1999.
3
The definition of “senior academic” and the process for solicitation of letters from
external referees is described in Section E.
4
The definition of senior academic and the process for solicitation of letters from
external referees is described in Section E. In some cases, identified by the Dean, a nonacademic may be appropriate to act as a referee but only one such person will act as a
referee in any given case.
5
In this document, the word “superior” denotes performance in the top quartile of a large
group of comparable persons. Approximation to such a norm can only be expected in
large groups; e.g., the whole University or a group the size of a large college when
evaluating teaching, or persons within the same rank and discipline in Canada when
evaluating scholarly work. There is no implication that one-quarter of the faculty in a
particular department or small college will be superior in teaching or research and
scholarly work. Some units may have a high proportion of faculty with superior
performance in a given category and some may have few. Of course, there is no way in
which one can actually compare a given individual’s teaching with that of all faculty in
the University of the candidate’s research with that or the candidate’s peers across the
country in order to determine if they are in the top one-quarter. These illustrations are
given solely to clarify the use of the word superior and to suggest the frequency with
which it is to be applied in tenure and promotion cases.
12